Speeding up combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Speeding up combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Bob Gein
08-02-05, 05:39 AM Would it be unbalancing to have characters with multiple attacks roll just one d20 attack roll for all their attacks? You could even have the characters decide for flavor if that one attack roll represents multiple attacks or one good/powerful attack. I know the death from massive damage rules would have to be changed. Also, rolling a natural 20 and a natural 1 would have to be changed, though I’m not sure exactly how.

I guess I’m just looking for a simple way to speed up higher-level combat. I’m also looking for ways to speed up DM prep time. If anyone has any ideas feel free to link me to them or post them here.

EDIT: Forgot to give an example. Lets say a warrior with an attack bonus of +20/+15/+10 is going to attack something. He rolls 1d20 and gets an 8. Fighting something with an AC of 18 or less would equate to 3 damage rolls; AC of 19-23 means 2 damage rolls; AC 24-28 means 1 damage roll; AC of 29 or higher is a miss.
Paul Hopebringer
08-02-05, 08:51 AM I'd recomend using a bell curve varient for this. I would say that would negate the *need* for additional rule changes, although you might still want to. Maybe you could be more stingy with what is considered a critical with a bell curve varient... like for example... roll 2d10 and don't even bother looking for rules that make it balanced with the current system. Just treat the numbers as they fall, leave the prices well enough alone, and all that stuff. The other rules are there to assume that you will roll a lot for a comparitivly small result (four attacks...) so in the end, I would say if you got a criticle, you wouldn't begrudge paying full price for what less probable that the regular system.
Sinaz
08-02-05, 01:06 PM That's not a bad idea...

So just to make sure I'm reading right...

You propose the player roll once for attack, then compare the roll plus each of the bonus attack modifiers in turn to see how many of the attacks hit...

Then roll damage per hit.

It's doable... just have to make sure the players go for it... they may WANT to roll per attack.
Paul Hopebringer
08-02-05, 01:20 PM Yes, you got it!

Wanting to role for each attack... that is just... sick...

You might be interested in this little thought to... I wrote this on another site, but it got no love... :eek: Maybe it should go in the feat section... umm... I'll get back to you...
Lina_Inverse
08-02-05, 01:27 PM thats a very intresting rule.however fighters will be alot more variable round to round.
one high roll means a massive strike,while a low roll can easily mean a wasted turn.
additionally will crit confirmations be rolled individually as well?
Sinaz
08-02-05, 01:31 PM I personally make players roll per attack... mostly because I am running a special house rule system that makes multiple attacks more volitile and interesting. For us, rolling per attack is integral.

Good luck with your system... and what's this other idea you speak of?
Bob Gein
08-02-05, 02:29 PM Thanks for the feedback guys.

I really like bell curves. The one created with 3d6 is really something beautiful. However, it wouldn't feel like D&D to me if I used anything other than a d20 for the attack roll.

For threats/criticals, natural 20s and natural 1s I was thinking of making that apply to the first attack only. This would unnecessarily weaken many melee builds. The more I play with the idea the more it seems like a lot more work than I want to do. I’d like to simplify and speed up the system without risking confusing my players.

Oh well. I’ll just keep lurking these boards and maybe someone smarter than me will post something that I can steal. :D
Masterful_Norg
08-02-05, 06:59 PM one high roll means a massive strike,while a low roll can easily mean a wasted turn.

Bob Gein,

You may choose to keep the possibility of a "massive strike" or a "wasted turn" as Lina_Inverse described; however, it shifts the ballance away from the possibilty of weak but successful attacks. One way to remedy this situation is to give an alternative to complete failure if one fails their attack roll by a predesignated margin. Perhaps if by rolling under the target AC by a difference no more than five one may at least deal half the dammage they roll or something similar to that.

Now if you really want to speed up combat you may consider using the average rolls for dammage so that you only need to roll one die a turn.
Loren Pechtel
08-02-05, 11:03 PM Have plenty of dice. Figure out what sort of dice you might need and roll them all in one roll. Have a simple ironclad rule as to what die is what so there's no question. (I've always worked with the rule that it goes from light to dark.)

From the DM side of the table you can end up needing more rolls in a round than you can reasonably roll at once. I'll roll several d20s and use them as I need them, when the last one is used I scoop up the pile and reroll it. I also reroll when combat is over so I don't have to keep track of what's used or not. It also has the advantage that the players don't know if I'm rolling something or not.
Sinaz
08-03-05, 11:46 AM For threats/criticals, natural 20s and natural 1s I was thinking of making that apply to the first attack only. This would unnecessarily weaken many melee builds. The more I play with the idea the more it seems like a lot more work than I want to do. I’d like to simplify and speed up the system without risking confusing my players.

That's almost my system.

We play that the first attack roll for a round sets your 'balance' for the entire round. So if it has a natural 1 or a crit, then every attack that round is rolled as a confirm to crit... even attacks of oppurtunity... until your next turn... plus confirmed critical misses/fumbles remove all further attacks that round.

Also, if on your first attack roll you roll something other than a natural, then no other attack that round can critical and all natural 1's and 20's are treated as 1's and 20's.
Gold Katana
08-04-05, 10:10 AM Unbalancing? Not if both the players and DM stick to the same method.

My group would absolutely HATE the suggested approach. The dice rolling and combat play-out is the main reason we play.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bob Gein 08-02-05, 05:39 AM	Would it be unbalancing to have characters with multiple attacks roll just one d20 attack roll for all their attacks? You could even have the characters decide for flavor if that one attack roll represents multiple attacks or one good/powerful attack. I know the death from massive damage rules would have to be changed. Also, rolling a natural 20 and a natural 1 would have to be changed, though I’m not sure exactly how. I guess I’m just looking for a simple way to speed up higher-level combat. I’m also looking for ways to speed up DM prep time. If anyone has any ideas feel free to link me to them or post them here. EDIT: Forgot to give an example. Lets say a warrior with an attack bonus of +20/+15/+10 is going to attack something. He rolls 1d20 and gets an 8. Fighting something with an AC of 18 or less would equate to 3 damage rolls; AC of 19-23 means 2 damage rolls; AC 24-28 means 1 damage roll; AC of 29 or higher is a miss.
Paul Hopebringer 08-02-05, 08:51 AM	I'd recomend using a bell curve varient for this. I would say that would negate the need for additional rule changes, although you might still want to. Maybe you could be more stingy with what is considered a critical with a bell curve varient... like for example... roll 2d10 and don't even bother looking for rules that make it balanced with the current system. Just treat the numbers as they fall, leave the prices well enough alone, and all that stuff. The other rules are there to assume that you will roll a lot for a comparitivly small result (four attacks...) so in the end, I would say if you got a criticle, you wouldn't begrudge paying full price for what less probable that the regular system.
Sinaz 08-02-05, 01:06 PM	That's not a bad idea... So just to make sure I'm reading right... You propose the player roll once for attack, then compare the roll plus each of the bonus attack modifiers in turn to see how many of the attacks hit... Then roll damage per hit. It's doable... just have to make sure the players go for it... they may WANT to roll per attack.
Paul Hopebringer 08-02-05, 01:20 PM	Yes, you got it! Wanting to role for each attack... that is just... sick... You might be interested in this little thought to... I wrote this on another site, but it got no love... :eek: Maybe it should go in the feat section... umm... I'll get back to you...
Lina_Inverse 08-02-05, 01:27 PM	thats a very intresting rule.however fighters will be alot more variable round to round. one high roll means a massive strike,while a low roll can easily mean a wasted turn. additionally will crit confirmations be rolled individually as well?
Sinaz 08-02-05, 01:31 PM	I personally make players roll per attack... mostly because I am running a special house rule system that makes multiple attacks more volitile and interesting. For us, rolling per attack is integral. Good luck with your system... and what's this other idea you speak of?
Bob Gein 08-02-05, 02:29 PM	Thanks for the feedback guys. I really like bell curves. The one created with 3d6 is really something beautiful. However, it wouldn't feel like D&D to me if I used anything other than a d20 for the attack roll. For threats/criticals, natural 20s and natural 1s I was thinking of making that apply to the first attack only. This would unnecessarily weaken many melee builds. The more I play with the idea the more it seems like a lot more work than I want to do. I’d like to simplify and speed up the system without risking confusing my players. Oh well. I’ll just keep lurking these boards and maybe someone smarter than me will post something that I can steal. :D
Masterful_Norg 08-02-05, 06:59 PM	one high roll means a massive strike,while a low roll can easily mean a wasted turn. Bob Gein, You may choose to keep the possibility of a "massive strike" or a "wasted turn" as Lina_Inverse described; however, it shifts the ballance away from the possibilty of weak but successful attacks. One way to remedy this situation is to give an alternative to complete failure if one fails their attack roll by a predesignated margin. Perhaps if by rolling under the target AC by a difference no more than five one may at least deal half the dammage they roll or something similar to that. Now if you really want to speed up combat you may consider using the average rolls for dammage so that you only need to roll one die a turn.
Loren Pechtel 08-02-05, 11:03 PM	Have plenty of dice. Figure out what sort of dice you might need and roll them all in one roll. Have a simple ironclad rule as to what die is what so there's no question. (I've always worked with the rule that it goes from light to dark.) From the DM side of the table you can end up needing more rolls in a round than you can reasonably roll at once. I'll roll several d20s and use them as I need them, when the last one is used I scoop up the pile and reroll it. I also reroll when combat is over so I don't have to keep track of what's used or not. It also has the advantage that the players don't know if I'm rolling something or not.
Sinaz 08-03-05, 11:46 AM	For threats/criticals, natural 20s and natural 1s I was thinking of making that apply to the first attack only. This would unnecessarily weaken many melee builds. The more I play with the idea the more it seems like a lot more work than I want to do. I’d like to simplify and speed up the system without risking confusing my players. That's almost my system. We play that the first attack roll for a round sets your 'balance' for the entire round. So if it has a natural 1 or a crit, then every attack that round is rolled as a confirm to crit... even attacks of oppurtunity... until your next turn... plus confirmed critical misses/fumbles remove all further attacks that round. Also, if on your first attack roll you roll something other than a natural, then no other attack that round can critical and all natural 1's and 20's are treated as 1's and 20's.
Gold Katana 08-04-05, 10:10 AM	Unbalancing? Not if both the players and DM stick to the same method. My group would absolutely HATE the suggested approach. The dice rolling and combat play-out is the main reason we play.